Simone de Beauvoir: Feminist Icon Was a Lesbian Pedophile

by Lucien Valsan
From A Voice for Men (unabridged)
(abridged by henrymakow.com)

De Beauvoir not just a
pedophile apologist but an active … abuser is her activity through which she was recruiting pupils,
abusing them, and then passing them to Jean-Paul Sartre, sometimes
separately, sometimes in an integrated ménage à trois. The
Telegraph writes in a review of Carole Seymour-Jones’s book, Simone
de Beauvoir? Meet Jean-Paul Sartre:

For long periods, the couple became a
“trio”, though the arrangement rarely worked out well for the
third party: at least two of de Beauvoir’s former pupils found
themselves becoming first her lover, then Sartre’s, only for the
couple to close ranks against them once the fun wore off.[...]

For Seymour-Jones, de Beauvoir’s
affairs with her students were not lesbian but paedophiliac in
origin: she was “grooming” them for Sartre, a form of “child
abuse”.

For de Beauvoir (as well as for
Sartre), age didn’t matter as long as the partners were younger
than her and Sartre. The possibility that others might get hurt or
sexually exploited wasn’t even remotely on the eminent feminist’s
radar, who thought that “grooming” girls in order for Sartre to
take their virginity (Sartre’s words, not ours) was in and of
itself an act of sexual empowerment for those girls.

But if these escapades … don’t convince you of the questionable character
of de Beauvoir, let’s have a look through her feminist writings,
which are so filled with misogyny that it’s hard to find an
equivalent…

De Beauvoir’s best known book, The Second
Sex, had the following to say about
wives:

The wife feeds on [her husband] like a parasite;
but a parasite is not a triumphant master.

Over a quarter of a century later, in
1975, in a dialogue with another feminist, Betty Friedan, de Beauvoir 
said:

No, we don’t believe that any woman
should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at
home to raise her children. Society should be totally different.
Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such
a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing
women in a certain direction.

In my opinion, as long as the family
and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal
instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed.

Actually, de Beauvoir’s hatred of
maternity and mothers in general is very obvious throughout The Second Sex:

Motherhood relegates woman to a
sedentary existence; it is natural for her to stay at home while men
hunt, fish, and go to war.

[The mother] is plant and animal, a
collection of colloids, an incubator, an egg; she frightens children
who are concerned with their own bodies and provokes sniggers from
young men because she is a human being, consciousness and freedom,
who has become a passive instrument of life.

And when this eminent feminist started
bashing women’s bodies, nobody could stop her:

The psychic attitude evoked by
menstrual servitude constitutes a heavy handicap.

[...]a woman’s body–and
specifically the girl’s–is a “hysterical” body in the sense
that there is, so to speak, no distance between psychic life and its
physiological realization. The turmoil brought about by the girl’s
discovery of the problems of puberty exacerbates them. Because her
body is suspect to her, she scrutinizes it with anxiety and sees it
as sick: it is sick.

The mammary glands that develop at
puberty have no role in the woman’s individual economy: they can be
removed at any moment in her life.

De Beauvoir then goes on to explain how evil and oppressive the family is for the development of
a girl. If the father has the audacity to be proud and appreciative
of his daughter’s successes, then that’s yet another evidence of
oppression of the daughter by the
father. But if fathers get away fairly easy, mothers who dare to
discipline their daughters get an even harsher admonition from the
eminent feminist:

Mothers–we will see–are blindly
hostile to freeing their daughters and, more or less deliberately,
work at bullying them even more; for the adolescent boy, his effort
to become a man is respected, and he is already granted great
freedom. The girl is required to stay home; her outside activities
are watched over.

So, are we clear? The fact that some
parents were not letting their girls go out after a certain hour in
the Nazi-occupied France in the middle of World War II constitutes
oppression.

The hypocrisy of this woman is both
fascinating to study and revolting at the same time. Simone de
Beauvoir, worshiped even today as a great icon of the “good”
feminism of the 1960s.

In other words, while numerous
Romanians left in the USSR were being deported into the Gulag, while
the intellectual elite of this country was being decimated in
concentration camps like Râmnicu Sărat, Pitești, or Aiud, and
while even 12-year-old boys were being tortured in Communist prisons
for conspiracy against the socialist order, Simone de Beauvoir was
publishing The Second Sex in which she was explaining how women’s
liberation is intimately related to the fate of socialism while
vehemently denying, alongside with her lover, the Stalinist
atrocities that were taking place in the same moments.

And we, the
Romanian taxpayers, now pay for students to go to SNSPA and study
this low-life as if she’s someone we should look up to. Well, this
is a real example of state-sponsored misogyny! But I have a feeling
that the feminist elite is very comfortable with it.

———-

Lucien Valsan is the European News Director for AVfM, the host of The Voice of
Europe radio program, and can be reached at [email protected] .